Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Michael Jackson's Ghost Testifies at AEG Trial?

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
How to swear-in a ghost as a witness legally? Or rather...how does one take testimony thats HEARSAY from a sworn in witness, and that HEARSAY be taken as legal testimonial evidence?

Hee-he! (In Michael's voice)




posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by sled735
 


Ok, so if I was an american being taken to court for not paying my income tax, I'm not allowed to enter into evidence any of the supporting evidence that the 16th amendment was never ratified, thus making it illegal. I'm not allowed to bring that up, and if I do, it's stricten from the record.

But testimony from a ghost IS admissible.

I'd laugh if this wasn't so sad

Until I read your statement, I was thinking along the lines of: Let's hope the jury is as WTH as we are, and that's why the judge left it in. That, and because it was someone from AEG's testimony, not Michael Jackson's... Clearly. Plus it was "she said he said" at best, and not worth a grain of sand, save for showing what desperate measures AEG is taking to sway the trial.

That was going to be my post, and it still may be true. But what you said expanded my viewpoint to make it a mere anecdote... an example. Of the larger picture: There is a great deal of power vested in the person allowed to control the flow of information. In any situation. The general flow of it, as well as things like admissibility in court. In any court case... 12 jurors vs. 1 judge. The jurors are still outnumbered, if you think about it. They may not get to hear something at all, or they may hear something that would slam-dunk change their mind, yet be told it is prohibited to allow it any bearing on the outcome. Wouldn't the "jury of our peers" seem a more logical and fair choice to decide what will be allowed consideration, as a part of their deliberations? For 2 reasons: It is THEIR duty to render a fair & honest verdict by sifting through all available information. And also, 12 in consensus just sounds a whole lot more reliable than 1 dictating to them his/her parameters.

Sorry to expand out so far from the Michael Jackson trial. Let's zero back in now, and star for poster who made me zoom out.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Wow. The legal system has gone insane.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by sled735
 


Actually this is nothing new in the USA. There was a well documented case which was aired on International TV following March 14, 2012.

One Clyde Donovan left the toilet seat up (after his mother, Betsy, repeatedly asked him to put the toilet seat down), which led to Betsy's death. Stan Marsh, Kyle Broflovski, Jimmy Valmer and Clyde Donovan then attempted to sue John Harington, the inventor of the flush toilet for Betsy Donovan's death. This legal process is called a "sue-ance". After some additional drama the group ends up in public court where a lawyer, Randy Marsh, gets the ghost of Betsy Donovan on the stand, where she blames Clyde for her death. The ghost of John Harrington also appears in the courtroom, explaining that it's nobody's fault; people have simply been using his invention (the toilet) wrong - with the exception of one Butters Stotch.

So, ghosts in the courtroom is old news. Even in that case the judge allowed - not one, but two ghosts to testify in court.

For those that would like to look into the details of this case can find it filed under South Park - Season 16, episode 1 aka "Reverse Cowgirl".

Yes. This is that absurd...
edit on 21-6-2013 by Gemwolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Gemwolf
 

LUV South Park.



Michael Jacksons ghost didn't testify. He wasn't sworn in. This is something like 3 degrees removed from Michael Jackson (if it was indeed Michael Jacksons ghost, which I doubt). A friend of a friend of a friend said that the ghost said .... that kind of thing. It's INSANE !!



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Gemwolf
 








That's funny!



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by new_here

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by sled735
 


Ok, so if I was an american being taken to court for not paying my income tax, I'm not allowed to enter into evidence any of the supporting evidence that the 16th amendment was never ratified, thus making it illegal. I'm not allowed to bring that up, and if I do, it's stricten from the record.

But testimony from a ghost IS admissible.

I'd laugh if this wasn't so sad

Until I read your statement, I was thinking along the lines of: Let's hope the jury is as WTH as we are, and that's why the judge left it in. That, and because it was someone from AEG's testimony, not Michael Jackson's... Clearly. Plus it was "she said he said" at best, and not worth a grain of sand, save for showing what desperate measures AEG is taking to sway the trial.

That was going to be my post, and it still may be true. But what you said expanded my viewpoint to make it a mere anecdote... an example. Of the larger picture: There is a great deal of power vested in the person allowed to control the flow of information. In any situation. The general flow of it, as well as things like admissibility in court. In any court case... 12 jurors vs. 1 judge. The jurors are still outnumbered, if you think about it. They may not get to hear something at all, or they may hear something that would slam-dunk change their mind, yet be told it is prohibited to allow it any bearing on the outcome. Wouldn't the "jury of our peers" seem a more logical and fair choice to decide what will be allowed consideration, as a part of their deliberations? For 2 reasons: It is THEIR duty to render a fair & honest verdict by sifting through all available information. And also, 12 in consensus just sounds a whole lot more reliable than 1 dictating to them his/her parameters.

Sorry to expand out so far from the Michael Jackson trial. Let's zero back in now, and star for poster who made me zoom out.


There isn't going to be a jury for this trial. It's a civil suit, not a criminal trial. So, it's really just up to the judge.

ITA with you about the the power one person gets and the flow of info.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I was shocked too at first...

Then I realized it was Not Micheal Jackson's testimony that was allowed to stand - it was Brenda's testimony that was allowed to stand. It was her opinion. It was a crazy opinion but she told the facts as she saw them.

The Judge therefore should have told the jury to disregard those statements as being hearsay and non factual - although the testimony can remain on record.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
There's a ghost in that courtroom and it ain't Micheal's. No matter the outcome, this case is a brings to light how one man with a unique set of abilities, was used to by those around him for the sake of money.

Was Micheal every in control of his own decisions or his destiny?



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by VegHead
 




There isn't going to be a jury for this trial. It's a civil suit, not a criminal trial. So, it's really just up to the judge.

ITA with you about the the power one person gets and the flow of info.

Thanks for clearing that up. So WoW... in a civil suit, Mr. Judge has even MORE power than usual.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by new_here
reply to post by VegHead
 




There isn't going to be a jury for this trial. It's a civil suit, not a criminal trial. So, it's really just up to the judge.

ITA with you about the the power one person gets and the flow of info.

Thanks for clearing that up. So WoW... in a civil suit, Mr. Judge has even MORE power than usual.


I don't know about the specifics of this case, but juries in civil suits are quite common, especially when very large sums of money are in question.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by new_here
reply to post by VegHead
 




There isn't going to be a jury for this trial. It's a civil suit, not a criminal trial. So, it's really just up to the judge.

ITA with you about the the power one person gets and the flow of info.

Thanks for clearing that up. So WoW... in a civil suit, Mr. Judge has even MORE power than usual.


I don't know about the specifics of this case, but juries in civil suits are quite common, especially when very large sums of money are in question.

en.wikipedia.org...


Ok, thanks. I thought that would be an awful lot of power for a single human to wield!



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by sled735
 


whos going to be first to sue M Js ghost

what a laugh






top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join